Home HiFi better than Live?

Sean ... interesting your comment about not capturing the energy of the studio in a live performance. When I was recording with a band we found it very difficult to capture the energy and dynamics of the live performance in the studio. The more the recording engineer tried to polish the sound the more it lost its drive. I thought we were pretty good live, and we got good audience reactions, but our studio album just sounds flat to me now.
I completely agree with your comment regarding the engineering at live events. Is there some school somewhere that teaches PA guys that all the audience wants is gut-churning bass ?

Interesting observation, Seandtaylor. Our church choir made a CD recording of various pieces we knew well and we also found ourselves so concerned about getting everything just perfect for the recording that we lost the emotion and feeling of the pieces we were singing. A far worse performance than when we'd sing at a service or concert. Perhaps professional musicians can handle it better, but I still think that, unless you're manipulating things for the studio recording, or the artist is having a bad day/night, a live performance is the more exciting one for me, particularly when the audience also gets into it and in turn spurs on the artists.

In an objective sense, live music on instruments (assuming, unamplified) and re-produced music through a machine are, as one would expect, different. We try to get the sound of stereo to sound similar, but all of the above factors mentioned make that unfeasible (and, yes, in particular with natural dynamics).

But, while trying to approximate the sound of live music in an objective sense may be valuable, what we are actually trying to do is catalyze the experience of live music as our minds react to it. Stereos, because you can listen to them under a different set of circumstances - alone, at home etc. - produce their own context that amplifies this catalyzation (the receptive mind that listens deeply responds to turning off the thinking mind through isolation, quiet, closing the eyes, etc.).

As for myself, live music can not be beaten, if its good music heartfully played together and the people around aren't acting like jerks (went to a Ravinia concert this past summer that was awful because the young people were talking so much in our location...). So, context effects the live catalyzation too.

If you could have Sarah Vaughn singing in your living room unamplified or the sound of the amplified stereo machine playing Ms. Vaughn, which would you choose? Humans have evolved listening to "live" sounds and those are the ones that most easily quell the beast inside our minds.

Brave question and position though. Thank you for that.

I've had the some of the WORST experiences at big-venu/popular concerts (about 1/4 of the concerts I attended in the past year). Most of it has to do with a combination of very poor amplification, and the behavior of the crowds (loud and obnoxious). I've recently vowed NEVER to attend anything resembling an Arena concert! The main thing that keeps me going to live music is that I've had profoundly moving experiences at so many other concerts, that I've never been able to, nor had the urge to try to replicate by other means (per my earlier response to this post). It seems like the more intimate the setting, the less 'overblown' the amplification (accoustic have been some of the best concerts for me), the better the concert experience. Unfortunately it is pretty rare that someone like Dave Matthews plays to a small crowd in little theatre (I like some of Dave's music, but one of his Arena-sized outdoor concerts last year had me actually get up and leave quite early...it was HORRIBLE...again, acoustics/amplification & crowd). I wish I'd got to see some of the acoustic tour he did with Tim Reynolds (great Guitar player) which I believe were shows at smaller venues. That live CD with the two of them is wonderful if you like his music. Fortunately there is really not much popular stuff I like. Tori Amos is as main stream as it gets for me and I'd go ALMOST anywhere to hear her thrash those keyboards. But when she changed venues from the Paramount Theatre (excellent local venue for well-produced concerts) to our local sports arena that is otherwise used for basketball, hockey and the like, I drew the line there. I'd rather listen on a Walkman!!! I've been to one concert (which was one too many) in that concrete acoustic-nightmare, and the only time I'll ever go back there is either to watch a sporting event or if hell freezes over. Just like the components in a system, those elements that make the difference in whether a concert is a wonderful or horrible experience for you are all about synergy. It's just that the synergy of a live-concert is only partially predictable and repeatable, while much of the rest of it changes as quickly and unpredictably as a persons mood. The synergy of a stereo system is much more predictable and repeatable IMO.....not much is left to chance. It's indeed unfortunate that as most performers get popular, they seem to find the need to play the larger venues...or probably their promoters and record label$ feel the need! There are a few true artists who have made it in the big time, who seem to refuse to play larger venues. Tom Waits local concert here last year at the Moore Theatre (great local music venue) sold out faster than any concert in the history of Ticketron (I remember that little news blurb having missed getting my tickets). Waits could have easily filled up the local Thunderdome with the number of fans he could draw, but he consistently chooses to play smaller venues with good acoustics. He rarely plays a concert at all these days (I think it was ten years since he'd been to Seattle). I wish there were more "popular" performers that maintained that kind of integrity when they got famous. Easy to say from way down here on this little soapbox! Then again, there were oh so many young people (Nope, I ain't quite that anymore), having what appeared to be the time of their lives at those raucous concerts that sent me screaming out the door well before the end of the shows. Oh well, to each their own!

I think the biggest misunderstanding here is that studio recordings are accurate to what was played by the musicians.
Everywhere along the line choices are made by the people in the studio, beginning with the microphone and then working back to the tape that is actually recorded. Every choice affects what is ultimately heard on the playback medium. Even recordings as good as say, Sheffield Labs are a series of the best possible compromises. What then can we assume to be accurate???
The music that was played by the musicians is not what we end up with when we buy thier album so how could home HiFi be considered to sound better than live? Mixing boards, multitrack downsizing from 20 channel to two channel stereo, 20 bit recordings being taken down to 16 bit for our 'perfect sound forever' CDP's all affect the sound.
We are fooling ourselves if we don't think our sources are compromised. People who work in the recording studios are willing to admit it, audiophiles don't seem to be ready yet though. We still don't have a benchmark from which to measure!
As is said in an earlier post, I have asked my favorite musicians to allow me to sit in on their studio sessions to hear what they actually sound like. So far I have yet to recieve a positive response. Until then I will only have to guess what they sound like.